(UPDATED: 2ND HALF ADDED)Article in the Sunday World: Single Dad

Klingon Hamlet

"FOR AN UNMARRIED FATHER WHO HAS NO LEGAL RIGHTS, LIFE'S A NIGHTMARE. NOT A SINGLE DAY GOES BY THAT I DON'T THINK ABOUT MY DAUGHTER."[/SIZE]


It was an important milestone in his four-year-old’s life, but Jim Lyons wasn’t with his daughter on her first day of school this September. Instead he got his first glimpse of his child in her new school uniform in a photo published in a local newspaper.

“She was in the front row. I went down to the paper and I asked for the photo to be enlarged and laminated,” says the 34-year-old dad, who isn’t married to his little girl’s mother. The Tralee-based father felt he couldn’t be there when his child started school.


"I knew she’d be starting school but I didn’t want to turn up at the school gate that morning. The last thing I wanted was for an argument to start with my ex-partner,” explains Jim, who says his access to his daughter has dwindled almost to nothing in the past year.


A former security officer, Jim is currently unemployed due to ill-health—triggered, he says, by stress at not having regular access to his child.


“My relationship with my little girl’s mother was a six-month affair. When she came to my apartment to tell me she was pregnant, I was shocked but I was also excited at the thought of becoming a dad. I looked forward to it. We’d broken up by then. I offered to marry her straight away but she refused.


“She rang the day after the birth to tell me I was the dad of a beautiful baby girl. Seeing my child for the first time, I was overwhelmed. She was so small and gorgeous and perfectly healthy. I wanted to look after her for the rest of my life and to be there for her. That’s the way I feel right to this day.”


Getting the type of access to his daughter that he longed for was difficulting, says Jim. at the beginn


“I had supervised access at the mother’s discretion. I could see my little girl for two to three hours a week in my ex-partner’s presence. It was really frustrating. I wanted to bond with my daughter, yet I was only getting to see her once a week.



"Gradually, though, my access to my child built up to where I was seeing her three times a week when she was aged between one and three.”


But—after what he describes as a “serious falling-out” with his ex-partner—his access to his daughter dropped almost to nothing.


“At the moment there’s no arranged access and what I’ve had has been very limited. For the last year, I’ve been seeing my daughter when she’s in the park downtown with her mother,” says Jim, who did not pursue legal guardianship fearing such attempts might alienate his ex-partner.


“As it stands, I’m hoping she might come around and let me see my child the way I used to see her. I’d love if I could see her on a regular basis, without going to court,” says Jim, who describes his daughter as “a pure tomboy.”


“When I was seeing her in her mam’s house, we’d be out the back and she’d be swinging off the swings. She’s mad for climbing in the town park’s the best thing ever—she’s a very happy child. and going down the chute. I really think she


“Because she’s four now, we’d be able to have a conversation. I’d like to be able to take her downtown, buy her a dress, bring her to a movie or take her to the Aquadome. I’d like to let my parents see their grandchild.


“Being an unmarried father, with no automatic legal rights, is a living nightmare. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about my daughter,. I’ll always have a bond with her, but when she’s not seeing me often, she’s forgetting me, though when I see her downtown she recognises me,” says Jim.


One in three children born in Ireland is born outside marriage, confirms Eamonn Quinn, administrator of Unmarried and Separated Fathers of Ireland (USFI).

While Quinn acknowledges the many mothers who honour the father’s right to be involved in their child’s life, he says many unmarried fathers are denied access to their child simply on a whim.

“You hear of dads driving a distance, maybe from Dublin to Galway, to see their child and—without any notice at all—the mother denies them access, without fear of challenge.

It could be anything from blatantly being told “No, you’re not seeing the child” to being told the child’s sick or at a birthday party. Sometimes the more money the father pays in maintenance, the more access he gets.

“What’s often difficult is when the woman takes up with a new partner and the couple want to conduct their own family arrangement to the exclusion of the unmarried father. The new man might want to take them to the beach or the zoo but there’s a strain when he can’t because it’s the day the child has access to his natural father.”

An unmarried father has no legal rights at all, says Quinn, until such time as he’s appointed legal guardian of his child. A less preferable alternative is—with the mother’s consent—to sign a statutory declaration before a peace commissioner or a solicitor.

“Applying for guardianship in court is better because there’s a record in court, whereas signing a statutory declaration has no official recognition,” says Quinn, who advises unmarried fathers, seeking access to their child, to follow a series of defined steps.

“Write to your child’s mother, explaining how you love the child, that you respect her as the mother but that you’d appreciate if she also recognises you as the child’s father. If this fails, notify the mother in a follow-up letter of your intention to apply for guardianship through the courts.”

Quinn strongly recommends unmarried fathers find out what legal guardianship means before they appear before a judge.

“It means being a protector of the child’s moral, physical, religious, educational and emotional upbringing.

“Know what you want at midweek, weekend, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Easter, Christmas, summer holidays, first day at school, First Communion. It has to be that detailed. If you’re supposed to have your child between 10am and 6pm every second Saturday and you don’t, it’s very clear the court order has been broken.”

Many unmarried fathers let the side down, says Quinn. “They’re too busy working or drinking or watching football to mget involved in highlighting the ever-present difficulties for separated and unmarried fathers in Ireland. Unless fathers wage a wider campaign, nothing’s going to change.”

Meanwhile in Tralee, Jim Lyons wants to set up a support group for unmarried fathers living in the south-west, who find it difficult to access groups in Dublin or Galway. Email: kingdomfathers@gmail.com. You can also visit the USFI website at www.usfi.ie.

.

Nevyn

If you are going to reproduce an artical can you please do so as a quote and link to it please other wise the site may get into trouble for publishing copywrited content.

ash23

Why wouldn't he pursue the matter through the courts?
He already says he had a "serious falling out" with the mother so why is he worried about alienating her?
Unless he thinks he wouldn't get a court to agree access then I can't understand why he doesn't pursue it.

metrovelvet

Can I get an invitation to the pity party?

Das Kitty

It does seem strange. If that was the case would an article in a Sunday Newspaper with only one side of the story not be way more alienating?

Nevyn

I think that he should go through the courts, and I think the court orders should be enforced on the mother, unfortunately the system seems reticent to do so.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think that he should go through the courts, and I think the court orders should be enforced on the mother, unfortunately the system seems reticent to do so.

The courts arent enforcing anything at the moment. I believe bench warrents for no maintenance have also been suspended.

geckotime

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can I get an invitation to the pity party?

Boo!

smelltheglove

This kind of thing really gets to me, no I'm not a father but I was raised by my father, under the same situation as I above I became pregnant and I insisted my childs father had a part in her life. He didnt take the news as above but I kept him informed constantly even if he did not want to speak to me. Now they have a great relationship.

Every child needs their mother people say but they do also need their father, why have just one when you can have both? I cant even put into words how much this irritates me, there are people out there who give single dads a bad name fair enough but there are also people out there that give single mothers a bad name.

Having come from a childhood with arguing parents fighting for custody etc etc I have a completely different aspect to most. My daughter is 7 now and I am glad to say that as parents we get on great, her daddy and his whole family, brother sisters and parents all came to my wedding, we attend birthday celebrations in their house etc etc. I dont understand how two people who love a child so much cannot put the past behind them and do what is best for the child. I know it is usually just one causing the hassle and in this case I really feel for the dad. I do agree fathers need more rights many think there is no hope for them, but there is, and I suppose my own experience as a child is proof too.

Splendour

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think that he should go through the courts, and I think the court orders should be enforced on the mother, unfortunately the system seems reticent to do so.

My neighbour (unmarried) went to court last year to get access to his son as the mother was unwilling to let him see the child. Due to the decision of the court he now has his son every weekend.

pickarooney

Splendour wrote: »

My neighbour (unmarried) went to court last year to get access to his son as the mother was unwilling to let him see the child. Due to the decision of the court he now has his son every weekend.

I don't understand why this situation is generally phrased this way as opposed to "unwilling to let the child see his father" which is just as true and possibly even more unfair. She may have a beef with the ex but why take it out on her kid... that will just never make sense to me.

Klingon Hamlet

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand why this situation is generally phrased this way as opposed to "unwilling to let the child see his father" which is just as true and possibly even more unfair. She may have a beef with the ex but why take it out on her kid... that will just never make sense to me.

Because the general public always think of the parents before the child. It's automatic and it's part of the reason why children are the ones who suffer most.

eviltwin

Hate, hate, HATE articles like this..they are so biased and one sided

If its all legit then my heart goes out to the man but we only have one side of the story here and of course he's going to put a spin on it to make himself out to be the victim.

Unless we can hear the mother's side of the story and her reasons for denying him access then we can't really judge the situation properly can we?

Klingon Hamlet

eviltwin wrote: »

Hate, hate, HATE articles like this..they are so biased and one sided

If its all legit then my heart goes out to the man but we only have one side of the story here and of course he's going to put a spin on it to make himself out to be the victim.

Unless we can hear the mother's side of the story and her reasons for denying him access then we can't really judge the situation properly can we?

I agree. However, when you hear about wayward fathers, the same problem applies...you never get the father's point of view.

And guess who never gets their opinion asked? You got it: THE KIDS.

Nevyn

We don't have a child centred system, which is why this happens.

Splendour

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

And guess who never gets their opinion asked? You got it: THE KIDS.

My son had his opinion listened to and is living with his Dad.Problem with situations like this though is that siblings can get split up (as happened in my case )and I really don't think this is fair on children.

Wantobe

The fundamental tenet of irish family law is that all decisions must be made in the best interest of the child.

As a solicitor who practises in family law I can honestly say that I have never ( even in the most difficult circumstances) seen a parent denied either guardianship or access. I have seen addicts ( of many persuasions), parents accused of child abuse, and just plain idiots ( of both sexes) given access. Where the situation is poor supervised access may be given.

So while this kind of article may tug on the heartstrings of those who have children, I would really have to question why any parent who is committed to seeing their child would not pursue their child's legal right to access with them. And yes, it is the child's right-not the parents.

Splendour

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand why this situation is generally phrased this way as opposed to "unwilling to let the child see his father" which is just as true and possibly even more unfair. She may have a beef with the ex but why take it out on her kid... that will just never make sense to me.

Well in the situation I mentioned above, the father asked to see the child hence the 'unwilling to let the father see the child'. Had the child been old enough to ask to see his father and the mother was disagreeable to this, then it would be an 'unwilling to let the child see his father' scenario.
At the end of the day though does it matter how it's worded-it's unfair either way...

metrovelvet

Wantobe wrote: »

The fundamental tenet of irish family law is that all decisions must be made in the best interest of the child.

As a solicitor who practises in family law I can honestly say that I have never ( even in the most difficult circumstances) seen a parent denied either guardianship or access. I have seen addicts ( of many persuasions), parents accused of child abuse, and just plain idiots ( of both sexes) given access. Where the situation is poor supervised access may be given.

So while this kind of article may tug on the heartstrings of those who have children, I would really have to question why any parent who is committed to seeing their child would not pursue their child's legal right to access with them. And yes, it is the child's right-not the parents.

It doesnt tug on my heart strings. There was no mention of this man attempting mediation or applying to the courts. He has the power and chooses not to use it.

ElectraBlue

metrovelvet wrote: »

It doesnt tug on my heart strings. There was no mention of this man attempting mediation or applying to the courts. He has the power and chooses not to use it.

I am nearly sure that if he had mentioned anything about Court proceedings he would be in trouble with the judge due to the 'in camera' rule (I'm open to correction here).

smelltheglove

Wantobe wrote: »

I would really have to question why any parent who is committed to seeing their child would not pursue their child's legal right to access with them. And yes, it is the child's right-not the parents.

You make a fair point and obviously have the experience to state it.

I would say here I can out my experience as being the child. I remember going to school a nervous wreck when my parents were going to court, I remember getting the bus home and being so scare of what was going to be waiting for, was I going to have to move, what was going to change. I honestly do believe that if there is any chance of sorting things outside of the courts for the sake of the child it should be done.

It is the children that are left as bystanders in this, and yes they are too young to make the decisions in the majority of the cases but few are asked what they want. I wasnt, I was happy with the result, and better for it but never asked.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

It doesnt tug on my heart strings. There was no mention of this man attempting mediation or applying to the courts. He has the power and chooses not to use it.

There is no mention of him not attempting mediation. If he tried it and she refused, and he mentioned that, then he would only upset her and cause more bitterness by making that part of the situation public.

The simple fact is the law is sexist, cruel and archaic.

Imagine things were reversed: a mom has the baby and the system says, sorry, you're not married, so the dad is the automatic guardian, the primary carer, and you must either agree to sign joint guardianship or you must apply to the courts (which often causes permanent rifts and bitterness.)

Nevyn

Nope
acording to the article he doesn't want to go throught the courts to get his rights.

says Jim, who did not pursue legal guardianship fearing such attempts might alienate his ex-partner.

ash23

Imagine things were reversed: a mom has the baby and the system says, sorry, you're not married, so the dad is the automatic guardian, the primary carer, and you must either agree to sign joint guardianship or you must apply to the courts (which often causes permanent rifts and bitterness.)

If that were the case, I can tell you that I personally would drag the father through every court in the land to get my child. I would find the money somewhere and I would NEVER give up and accept being a bystander in my childs life.

metrovelvet

ash23 wrote: »

If that were the case, I can tell you that I personally would drag the father through every court in the land to get my child. I would find the money somewhere and I would NEVER give up and accept being a bystander in my childs life.

Really? You wouldn't whinge to the daily mail about being a victim to yet another woman with a Medea complex?

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Really? You wouldn't whinge to the daily mail about being a victim to yet another woman with a Medea complex?

Sunday World. And from reading it, it seems more to do with the sexist family laws, rather than a whinge. The focus is mainly on the guy'soption: to go tocourt and ask the court's permission to be a dad, which would only further alienate the mom, or be a bit of a cowardandhope for the best.

What I gathered from USFI's Eamonn Quinn's input was:

Laws are sexist,unfair, and anti-children's rights
Alot of moms and dads do their titleproudly
A good deal of moms and dads make bad names for their title

Simplefact is: if dads had equal rights, in other words, no sexual discrimination, instead treating all parents equally, and treating all children equally, then Jimwouldn't have to face such a difficult choice. Regardless of his indecision and non-assertiveness, he loves his child...so...

Why must he ask the court's permission for that love to be formally recognised? I am continuously baffled by this. Why aremoms primary carers? Women are treated equally in society, and rightly so. Now it's time for men and children, unwed or wed, black white or purple, straight or gay, whatever, to get the same.

And I think it's time we as Irish people,rather than say the usual Well that's just the way life is, so suck it up, instead, as one, look at the awful system, and make it right. This article is not a whinge-fest. It's a simple man's side of what is no doubt a two-sided story.

I would like to read the mom's side too.

irishwolfhound

Do U ever think that this man is just trying to highlight this unfair N unjust system that he IS forced to live with?
There r many mothers who love using guys 4 there sperm n getting pregnant by different men so they can live on benifits n get a 3 bed council house????
Think about this.....the man is not there 2 whinge...he is just putting out his side that he loves his daughter n that he is denyed access due 2 a mother who loves using an innocent child n a dirty war!!!
I saw the Sunday World n it really had me n tears as i personally feel 4 this guys pain n suffering.

Klingon Hamlet

irishwolfhound wrote: »

Do U ever think that this man is just trying to highlight this unfair N unjust system that he IS forced to live with?
There r many mothers who love using guys 4 there sperm n getting pregnant by different men so they can live on benifits n get a 3 bed council house????
Think about this.....the man is not there 2 whinge...he is just putting out his side that he loves his daughter n that he is denyed access due 2 a mother who loves using an innocent child n a dirty war!!!
I saw the Sunday World n it really had me n tears as i personally feel 4 this guys pain n suffering.

Yes and there are many men who shirk responsibility. We're not discussing benefit wh0res and rotten man-wimps. We'retalking real parents here, who are blindsided by a bigoted system created over a century ago, and barely reformed since.

Nevyn

irishwolfhound text speak is not allowed on this site.
I suggest that you read the faq for the site www.boards.ie/faq

ash23

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Why must he ask the court's permission for that love to be formally recognised? I am continuously baffled by this. Why aremoms primary carers? Women are treated equally in society, and rightly so. Now it's time for men and children, unwed or wed, black white or purple, straight or gay, whatever, to get the same.

It's simple biology, really.
A woman gives birth. The child comes from her uterus. There is no question of paternity. Not the case with the father. Therefore the woman gets automatic rights unless she and the father agree on joint custody, paternity is established etc.
It's unlikely to change. If it did we'd hear the cries from the men about being duped into being fathers, having duties and responsibilities enforced on them etc etc. You can't please everyone.

Klingon Hamlet

ash23 wrote: »

It's simple biology, really.
A woman gives birth. The child comes from her uterus. There is no question of paternity. Not the case with the father. Therefore the woman gets automatic rights unless she and the father agree on joint custody, paternity is established etc.
It's unlikely to change. If it did we'd hear the cries from the men about being duped into being fathers, having duties and responsibilities enforced on them etc etc. You can't please everyone.

A man can't be duped, he knows how to put on protection, wit the utmost respect I don't think your answer justifies the current predicament. Let the selfish dads arguetheir way out of responsibility, they are in the minority. Instead, allow the majority the legal equality and that will rapidly ease the queues in the courts and allow dads be dads, allow judges face other issues, and will help ease the bitterness overall between ex-partners (no court application = no begrudgery on either side)

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

It's simple biology, really.
A woman gives birth. The child comes from her uterus. There is no question of paternity. Not the case with the father.

Maternity.

Therefore the woman gets automatic rights unless she and the father agree on joint custody, paternity is established etc.
It's unlikely to change.

Actually it is likely to change and slowly but surley is changing. Automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers being one of the things that is already being recommended.

If it did we'd hear the cries from the men about being duped into being fathers, having duties and responsibilities enforced on them etc etc. You can't please everyone.

That doesn't make sense. Fathers already have duties and responsibilities enforced on them. Giving them rights will not change this.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

A man can't be duped, he knows how to put on protection, wit the utmost respect I don't think your answer justifies the current predicament.

Of course he can. He can be told by the woman that she is on the pill or even incapable of having children. He can be assured by the woman that she has no interest in becoming a mother and would take steps to prevent it if she did get pregnant. Best of all, he can be duped in that any ejaculation, if kept, can be used by someone who is actively seeking to get pregnant (even a blowjob is not safe, as Boris Becker seems to have found out). And of course, a man can be duped by being told he is the father of another man's child.

metrovelvet

Fathers have no responsibilities forced on them. They dont have to pay maintenance even with a court order. And plenty dont.

ash23

But again, how do we enforce this "giving unmarried fathers automatic rights". Is it when they put their names on the birth cert? And what if they don't (as in my case) and disappear(as in my case) and never see the child or pay maintenance (as in my case)? My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

metrovelvet

ash23 wrote: »

But again, how do we enforce this "giving unmarried fathers automatic rights". Is it when they put their names on the birth cert? And what if they don't (as in my case) and disappear(as in my case) and never see the child or pay maintenance (as in my case)? My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

In the US as in most countries its once paternity is established and the name is on the birthcert, they have their rights and the responsibility of paying maintenance [note ONE responsibility, in the singular - they do not have responsibilieS enforced on them.]

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Fathers have no responsibilities forced on them. They dont have to pay maintenance even with a court order. And plenty dont.

I think both you and ash23 are confusing responsibilities with the enforcement of those responsibilities. Both parents have responsibilities forced upon them (that is; whether they want them or not), however where the problem arises is when law cannot enforce such responsibilities.

In this mothers also shirk their responsibilities, such as when they are ordered to give access to the father and fail to do so; and this responsibility is also seldom enforced.

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the US as in most countries its once paternity is established and the name is on the birthcert, they have their rights and the responsibility of paying maintenance [note ONE responsibility, in the singular - they do not have responsibilieS enforced on them.]

Maintenance, or child support, is not the only financial responsibility that fathers have to bare. In Ireland they are also liable for a share of maternity and, God forbid, funeral expenses and also have a responsibility to adequately provide for the child in their will.

If the US system limits financial obligations to child support, then you are correct and they only have the one responsibility, otherwise it's not as simple as that.

Overall, whether you are the mother, father or child, family law with regards to this is a bit of a mess in Ireland and I suspect will not improve (although it will change) for a long time.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

There's a reason that paternal rights and obligations are separated. On one side if a father fails to live up to his parental obligation of maintenance, then should he be denied his rights of access, etc?

If so, another father who is denied his rights of access, etc, by the mother could equally argue that he should not have to pay.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think both you and ash23 are confusing responsibilities with the enforcement of those responsibilities. Both parents have responsibilities forced upon them (that is; whether they want them or not), however where the problem arises is when law cannot enforce such responsibilities.

In this mothers also shirk their responsibilities, such as when they are ordered to give access to the father and fail to do so; and this responsibility is also seldom enforced.

Maintenance, or child support, is not the only financial responsibility that fathers have to bare. In Ireland they are also liable for a share of maternity and, God forbid, funeral expenses and also have a responsibility to adequately provide for the child in their will.

If the US system limits financial obligations to child support, then you are correct and they only have the one responsibility, otherwise it's not as simple as that.

Overall, whether you are the mother, father or child, family law with regards to this is a bit of a mess in Ireland and I suspect will not improve (although it will change) for a long time.

No they do not. The mother obviously has the responsibiities forced upon her the father does not in anyway, except if you consider peer pressure to be force.

Neither access or maintenance is enforced at this stage.

They are not obliged to cover a child in the will. Not at all. I think only in France that happens where you have to give at least half of your property to your children.

I have no idea about obligations to cover the child's funeral expenses.

As for the US, yes I am correct. But the US is much stronger about enforcement, both for access and child support.

metrovelvet

ash23 wrote: »

But again, how do we enforce this "giving unmarried fathers automatic rights". Is it when they put their names on the birth cert? And what if they don't (as in my case) and disappear(as in my case) and never see the child or pay maintenance (as in my case)? My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

No he should not. However, a judge would see it as a chance for the child to know his or her father and would not want to stop that from happenning so he probaby would not deny access but he would also apply a maintenance order.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

No they do not. The mother obviously has the responsibiities forced upon her the father does not in anyway, except if you consider peer pressure to be force.

I don't follow.

Neither access or maintenance is enforced at this stage.

As I said, Irish family law is a bit of a mess at present. It proboably requires rather drastic reform, which I doubt will be carried out.

They are not obliged to cover a child in the will. Not at all. I think only in France that happens where you have to give at least half of your property to your children.

I phrased that badly; if a parent dies intestate, the child automatically becomes an heir. Otherwise, while a parent need not specifically include a child in their will, or even exclude them, the will may be challenged on the basis that the parent has a legal obligation to adequately provide for the child.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't follow.

You were saying that the father is forced to take on other responsibiities besides maintenance, but not legally forced.

Im saying, no he is not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I phrased that badly; if a parent dies intestate, the child automatically becomes an heir. Otherwise, while a parent need not specifically include a child in their will, or even exclude them, the will may be challenged on the basis that the parent has a legal obligation to adequately provide for the child.

No. It automatically goes to a spouse first. If no spouse, then the child. And with changes in the law around partership, it will go to a partner, not the chid.

The will maybe challenged but unlikey would it be successful.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

You were saying that the father is forced to take on other responsibiities besides maintenance, but not legally forced.

Im saying, no he is not.

I cannot speak for the US, but as I said (in Ireland), a share of maternity/funeral costs are a responsibility of both parents and the child gets statutory rights with regards to inheritance, just like any other child and is considered to have a right to be "adequately provided for".

No. It automatically goes to a spouse first. If no spouse, then the child. And with changes in the law around partership, it will go to a partner, not the chid.

The will maybe challenged but unlikey would it be successful.

Depends on what you consider successful; if challenged a will that omits a child will likely result in that child receiving something from the estate. How much that is, is another matter.

Nevyn

Mother's can walk away from their responsibilities,either by giving custody to the father or putting the child up for adoption.

ash23

metrovelvet wrote: »

No he should not. However, a judge would see it as a chance for the child to know his or her father and would not want to stop that from happenning so he probaby would not deny access but he would also apply a maintenance order.

I would not have an issue with access. He wouldn't need to take me to court for access (unless he wanted it handled in a way I deemed inappropriate such as overnights right away etc). I would hope I wouldn't need to go to court for maintenance.

My main concern would be other "rights" the unmarried fathers would be granted (aside from access). Such as the right to prevent me moving somewhere or interfering in her education or medical treatment.
Basically him wanting to come back, not even knowing the child, and start throwing his weight around in terms of how she is being raised.

A father who is there from the start deserves that right. A father who has not been involved for long periods does not.

It would be my only concern about automatic rights for fathers.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Mother's can walk away from their responsibilities,either by giving custody to the father or putting the child up for adoption.

They have to give birth first. No way around that. And they have to wait for a certain period. The chid isnt just ripped away at birth.

Yeah sure, but then the father is off too, and the child doesnt have to be put up for adoption there.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I cannot speak for the US, but as I said (in Ireland), a share of maternity/funeral costs are a responsibility of both parents and the child gets statutory rights with regards to inheritance, just like any other child and is considered to have a right to be "adequately provided for".

Depends on what you consider successful; if challenged a will that omits a child will likely result in that child receiving something from the estate. How much that is, is another matter.

Wrong again, Irish children do not have statatory rights to inheritance. I was talking about Irish children. Spouses do, and partners will. Not children.

Wantobe

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. It automatically goes to a spouse first. If no spouse, then the child. And with changes in the law around partership, it will go to a partner, not the chid.

Actually that's not true. On on the death intestate of a married man his spouse will be entitled to 2/3, the remaining 1/3 to his children.

On the death intestate of a single man, his children will take all between them.

Where a man makes a will and does not give anything to his children, or disinherits one child, that disinherited child ( or children) have the right to take an action against the estate under s.117 of the Succession Act if they can prove they have not been adequately provided for. This type of action is generally only successfull where obvious discrimination in treatment can be shown ( for eg giving children of a subsequent relationship a college education, deposits for houses, cars etc but not providing at all for a child of a previous relationship either by maintenance or otherwise, or where a child is disabled and should morally have been provided for) and are seldom successful.

metrovelvet

Wantobe wrote: »

Actually that's not true. On on the death intestate of a married man his spouse will be entitled to 2/3, the remaining 1/3 to his children.

On the death intestate of a single man, his children will take all between them.

Where a man makes a will and does not give anything to his children, or disinherits one child, that disinherited child ( or children) have the right to take an action against the estate under s.117 of the Succession Act if they can prove they have not been adequately provided for. This type of action is generally only successfull where obvious discrimination in treatment can be shown ( for eg giving children of a subsequent relationship a college education, deposits for houses, cars etc but not providing at all for a child of a previous relationship either by maintenance or otherwise, or where a child is disabled and should morally have been provided for) and are seldom successful.

Isnt that what I said? Spouse first. No spouse then kids. But if a will is made out where someone other than the child receives the inheritance they can fight it but most likely will not win.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

They have to give birth first.

They don't have to depending on thier stance on abortion.

metrovelvet wrote: »

No way around that. And they have to wait for a certain period. The chid isnt just ripped away at birth.

You can refuse to see the child after it is born if you are determined to give it up for adoption, I know of someone who did that and was but in the GYN ward after giving birth rather then in with all the other mothers and babies and the child was put in the nursery.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yeah sure, but then the father is off too, and the child doesnt have to be put up for adoption there.

There are mother's who give over custody of the child to the father to rear,
it's not that unheard of.

Wantobe

metrovelvet wrote: »

Isnt that what I said? Spouse first. No spouse then kids. But if a will is made out where someone other than the child receives the inheritance they can fight it but most likely will not win.

No, it's not what you said. You said it automatically goes to a spouse first, if no spouse then kids. But it automatically goes to spouse and kids first. If no spouse, then all to the kids. Rather different.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

(unless he wanted it handled in a way I deemed inappropriate such as overnights right away etc)

That's the kicker though, innit? What you deem inappropriate may well be reasonable, but then again it may not be. Some mothers are not and use access as a weapon to get more money from fathers, others simply as a form control/revenge.

My main concern would be other "rights" the unmarried fathers would be granted (aside from access). Such as the right to prevent me moving somewhere or interfering in her education or medical treatment.

Well, TBH, I'm not sure if I have a lot of sympathy for you there. If the father is involved, I think that your wish to move somewhere else really is no longer yours alone (it does affect the lives of at least two others, after all). If not, he's still the child's father - that's why he legally has to pay maintenance - not simply a 'resource'.

A father who is there from the start deserves that right. A father who has not been involved for long periods does not.

If we were talking about a level playing field, I'd agree, but we're not. There are many reasons why a father may not be there at the start. Circumstances beyond his control, conflict with the mother making involvement difficult or impossible or he simply was not ready to be a father - remember, men don't get the same choice as women in this - if a woman is not ready she can choose not to keep the child and if she is ready, it is a bit silly to imagine that the man will magically be of like mind to her.

So unless you want to eliminate this imbalance, you really have to redress it in other ways.